Shadowrun

Catalyst Game Labs => Errata => Topic started by: Dangersaurus on (21:55:39/09-15-13)

Title: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (21:55:39/09-15-13)
The hot patch errata is great, but is there any estimate on when an official errata document will hit?
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: ambarmetta on (02:37:50/09-16-13)
I second this request.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: JackVII on (09:01:22/09-16-13)
This would be nice, at least a V1.0 of said errata to catch the stuff that was completely left out of the book.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Xenon on (07:10:46/09-17-13)
...or even a version 0.9 :p
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (09:21:22/09-17-13)
I suspect that we won't see the official errata document until the print copy is out and people have had a chance to peruse it for printing errors. While theoretically the Print version should be identical to the layout version and the PDF, there's always a chance for an old fashion misprint that would need to be included. Remember that we're still a week out from the street date of the non limited edition.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: ambarmetta on (11:12:16/09-17-13)
Actually the Hardcover edition is in my hands (standard).  I have the Mayan limited here.  The errors remain the same, and there is a lot of silence (probably due to demand and various other events Catalyst needs to be at, unfortunately)...I just wish there was more responsiveness from SR's devs. 

Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (11:27:31/09-17-13)
I'm not sure what silence your seeing. There's the Hotpatch Errata, the Errata and the FAQ thread here all of which contain communication from the devs.

I'd love to have the Errata out, but I've seen anything but silence on the subject from the Catalyst people.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: ambarmetta on (11:39:48/09-17-13)
Crunch:  Thinking over the situation, you may be right.  Perhaps I'm expecting a bit much from Catalyst on the developer side of things with their other priorities, although I am also limited in my understanding of how everything came together to come up with the book in the first place.

Hotpatch errata, going to have to go look at that again, honestly.  As far as "errata" goes, my understanding is that Aaron and Bull and the like (correct me guys, seriously, I haven't seen bull in some time) aren't providing the official word here except in some cases.  Just their understanding and interpretation.

I want something along the lines of what was in the second edition hardcover I bought used (second edition/1st still has the most effective draw for me, something 3rd and 4th lost touch with, at least as far as SR's setting goes--5th finally gives it a run for its money, but I digress)...to bring this back around:

Replace silence with lack of official Errata updates--PDF has been out for some time now.  What I mean is, why hasn't the FAQ page on the Shadowrun Tabletop site changed from "Coming soon"?  It will eventually, I know that.  And perhaps it's my lack of knowledge of how this book came together, etc.

It may also be (and probably the more likely reason) is that I am associating another issues (lack of shipping status updates or even responses, binding issues on the standard hard cover preorder I received yesterday) with the lack of official errata.  As I mentioned in another post, I'll keep my mouth shut on the matter.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (12:16:44/09-17-13)
The street date for the hardcover isn't until the last week of September, the PDF has been out for about a month. The older editions usually had a wait period of months if not years before any errata was issued.

Oh and Bull's last post was at 8:33 this morning.

I'm as eager for errata as the next person (actually probably more so), but I think decrying Catalyst's silence two weeks before the book is even in stores is a bit much.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: ambarmetta on (19:39:43/09-17-13)
Noted.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: celena til reth raen on (04:11:32/09-24-13)
I am fine with new books getting in, but we all have a urgent need of an errata.Sure I prefer you to take the necessary time to do it rather than having to errata the errata... But the lack of any ETA makes my table feel wwe have been stolen. So far impossible to play.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: AJCarrington on (09:40:35/09-24-13)
Given that they're now planning the second printing of the core book...hopefully the errata will be finalized and published soon.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: martinchaen on (10:58:08/09-24-13)
AJCarrington; Source?
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (11:04:50/09-24-13)
http://www.shadowruntabletop.com/blog/

They sold out the first printing before launch. Whether, or how much of, the errata would be included isn't mentioned. Personally my bet is that this will simply be a second run of the same book, sending it back to editing and layout would probably significantly delay to the second run.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (11:27:56/09-24-13)
15,000 copies? That's not enough to pay for jack or squat. Is CGL going to be around long enough to put out errata?
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (11:30:07/09-24-13)
I think you may have unrealistic expectations of the size of the print RPG market...
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Noble Drake on (11:34:11/09-24-13)
15,000 copies? That's not enough to pay for jack or squat. Is CGL going to be around long enough to put out errata?
You are kidding, right?

15,000 copies of a gaming book is a pretty standard print run... and many gaming products with that size of run never see a reprint.

...and let's not forget that those 15,000 copies sales are supplemented by PDF sales, of which there seem to be many.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (11:36:18/09-24-13)
Including the Limited Editions, we're talking 1m gross income and that's excluding PDF sales. Not that bad, really.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (12:06:21/09-24-13)
Crunch, Noble Drake:  ;D If my expectations are unrealistic, what does that say about CGL going back to print so soon?

Hey, over a million gross, that's pretty good for an RPG with a year long marketing push, no (real) D&D to compete with, and a coinciding video game release. You could run a company for a decade or more with that kind of dough.  :-X



Anyway, back on topic: any ETA on the errata?
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (12:16:39/09-24-13)
Crunch, Noble Drake:  ;D If my expectations are unrealistic, what does that say about CGL going back to print so soon?

Hey, over a million gross, that's pretty good for an RPG with a year long marketing push, no (real) D&D to compete with, and a coinciding video game release. You could run a company for a decade or more with that kind of dough.  :-X



Anyway, back on topic: any ETA on the errata?

It means that they've had a remarkably succesful flagship release?
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (12:19:46/09-24-13)
They have certainly worked the numbers to make it look that way.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Zar on (08:37:21/09-27-13)
I have to say that I feel Dangersaurus is partly correct in this instance.  If they sold out of their first printing before even the release date then they didn't print enough.  Hopefully it's because they knew there would be a lot of errata so they correct them for the next printing.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (08:48:23/09-27-13)
Sounds more like a "holy crap that's a lot of people buying this wth?! O_O what do you mean we're beating the shop-records and we sold out of the mayan limited edition in a flash, seriously this is the best sales we've ever had, good lord nobody expected this, we thought we'd have to be careful so as to not get stuck with excessive supplies that we need to pay storage costs for!"
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (11:11:49/09-27-13)
I think the proportion of online orders may also have surprised them. There are still copies on store shelves in a lot of places.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (12:03:53/09-27-13)
Hey, even if it's a problem it's a nice problem to have.

Anyway... back on topic: any ETA on the errata?
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (20:38:16/09-27-13)
Hey, even if it's a problem it's a nice problem to have.

Anyway... back on topic: any ETA on the errata?

no
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Jesentra on (22:04:36/09-28-13)
Hopefully soon. Want to run a campaign with some buddies in the next month or so, and it'd be handy to have!
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (00:26:02/09-29-13)
Sure would!
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Redwulfe on (21:47:32/10-14-13)
I'm not sure what silence your seeing. There's the Hotpatch Errata, the Errata and the FAQ thread here all of which contain communication from the devs.

I'd love to have the Errata out, but I've seen anything but silence on the subject from the Catalyst people.

I was looking around and could not find the posts in the thread. the only ones I found where from Aron and in his signature it says that his answers are not official and could be wrong. Are the posts you are referring to his? am I looking in the wrong area?

Red
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (21:52:58/10-14-13)
I'm not sure what silence your seeing. There's the Hotpatch Errata, the Errata and the FAQ thread here all of which contain communication from the devs.

I'd love to have the Errata out, but I've seen anything but silence on the subject from the Catalyst people.

I was looking around and could not find the posts in the thread. the only ones I found where from Aron and in his signature it says that his answers are not official and could be wrong. Are the posts you are referring to his? am I looking in the wrong area?

Red

The hotpatch errata is in the missions area of the board. Aaron's answers aren't word of god, but he is on the rules team and (while I don't like some of his answers personally) they are in fact communication from the devs. Bull has also commented on multiple issues in multiple places, as have several of the freelancers who worked on various issues.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (23:03:33/10-14-13)
It's been three months from release, almost one from the physical release. Wonder how long it'll be?
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (00:06:39/10-15-13)
took almost 13 months for the SR4 errata.

So don't hold you breath it will be tomorrow, or the next day. Or even next week.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Redwulfe on (00:12:18/10-15-13)
OK, thanks. The signature through me as I don't know who is who most of the time. I will go back and read through the posts more thoroughly. I really appreciate the quick response.

Red
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: AJCarrington on (09:12:31/10-15-13)
took almost 13 months for the SR4 errata.

So don't hold you breath it will be tomorrow, or the next day. Or even next week.

Let's hope that it's ready a little sooner than this... :(
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (12:20:06/10-15-13)
Well, they have to organize, clarify, compile, test, write, retest, modify and expand all the legitimate problems.
This is on top of all the work for the new books being worked on.

and don't forget, catalyst is made up of a REALLY tiny core staff, supported by some great freelance talent. This is not Hasbro with 3000 employees, and this is not piazo, with 40 years of publishing experience (took them 10 months for the pathfinder errata)
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: AJCarrington on (18:17:29/10-15-13)
Fair points. ;)

However, CGL has opted not to comment on the situation...other than the efforts of several dedicated freelancers. I have no idea how much work is involved, or how long it will take (though pretty clear that it's sizable).
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (18:57:12/10-15-13)
its pretty clear from posts by Aaron, Patrick, CanRay, Bull, and Hardy that they are aware of the need for an errata, and they are working on it, but you would have to read through dozens and dozens of threads to know that. (it's not been a central topic posting but spread all over the place).

As for an ETA, I am going with my gut ( and keep in mind, I am not employed by Catalyst, nor have any advanced, "inside" sources) and think that you can expect a Errata to be published sometime in the new year.... but most likely closer to March 2014.


That, of course is if they do not decide to release the errata in the upcoming sourcebooks based on topic. Meaning the Magic errata in the magic sourcebook, the Rigging errata in the riggers book, etc..
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (19:44:48/10-15-13)
I'm hoping a bit faster myself, specifically before the third printing. Gaming club won't buy an unerrata'd printing.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (20:21:58/10-15-13)
Reaver brings up a good point.

Is Catalyst going to sell the errata?
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (21:25:27/10-15-13)
generally, you don't sell an errata...

Think of an errata as an update to your computer. Once you have the software, the updates are "free" (minus the bandwidth to download it, and your time).

However, it is not unheard of for publishers to NOT print an errata, but to publish an expansion book with "New, Updated <insert game mechanic here> rules" that superceide the core book. (looking at you WoTC).

So to get the "errata'd rules" you had to buy the new sourcebook. That has been WoTC way of doing things since Hasbro bought them out.


But Hasbro is a soulless megacorp of the gaming and toy industry of our time. Nothing matters to them but the bottom line.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (21:46:05/10-15-13)
I love it when someone so clearly in the know educates me in the truth.

WotC and TSR before them have always provided any existing errata for most if not all of their products free or free with postage. Been playing RPGs since 1978, got updates for many a game with an SASE (look it up, kids). TSR and WoTC were first among game companies with a web presence, and one of the first things they did was get their support docs up. Whatever you dislike about their size or the amount of fictional spirit juice they possess, WotC treats their customers great. Soulless, eh? We're all soulless buddy.


Anyways... back on topic: does anyone from CGL have anything one way or the other to say about providing corrections for some of the errors in the books? Is it going to happen, or not?
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: AJCarrington on (21:54:31/10-15-13)
I guess time will tell, though I don't see them going this route.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (22:03:57/10-15-13)
No, based on CGL's previous history of errata, it will be free, and will be available on the main webpage for download, as well as available from DrivethruRPG and other download sites as well.


And Dangersaurus:

TSR and WoTC were Great for their customer service.... BEFORE they were bought out by Hasbro. (2006?? 2007?)

but Hasbro? Hasbro has NEVER had good customer service or business practices. Talk to those in the industry that has had to deal with Hasbro, and they either remain tight lipped, or give you the 2 word answer of "NEVER, again".  (IE: Monty Cook)

Do not confuse the 2 (3).

TSR pre-sell, GREAT customer service.
WotC pre-sell, Good customer service.
Hasbro. You're a customer? too bad for you.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (01:16:17/10-16-13)
So to get the "errata'd rules" you had to buy the new sourcebook. That has been WoTC way of doing things since Hasbro bought them out.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/updatesarchive
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dndplayershandbook2ndeditionerrata.asp

That's just the last three-and-a-half editions.

BEFORE they were bought out by Hasbro. (2006?? 2007?)

1999.

Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (01:24:27/10-16-13)
well, anyone got a hanky for the egg on my face?




All I can tell you is I and many others have been extremely dis-satisfied with Hasbro and their handling of WoTC since they took a more direct hand in WoTC  (2006/2007).

And yes you can find their Erratas online, but they have also changed and included those changes in the form of "advanced" and "updated" rules in a number of sourcebooks over the years. 
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: All4BigGuns on (01:36:29/10-16-13)
All I can tell you is I and many others have been extremely dis-satisfied with Hasbro and their handling of WoTC since they took a more direct hand in WoTC  (2006/2007).

So just shortly before they ruined D&D...
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (02:02:05/10-16-13)
they started giving crappy service around the last year or so of the 3.5 edition run. And that crappy service has extended into 4th edition as well and become the Defacto model for them (in many people's eyes). It is also indicative of how they have handled other departments of their brand name (computer games for the short time that Hasbro acted as a publisher, which they have thankfully gotten out of mostly)

as to "breaking D&D".... that is a matter of opinion. SOME people LOVE 4e D&D.

however, if I wanted to play a video game, I would. IT's faster then a PnP game.... and $e was basically a videogame on paper. (IMO)
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: All4BigGuns on (02:05:14/10-16-13)
SOME people LOVE 4e D&D.

Mainly those who got into it at that point...

however, if I wanted to play a video game, I would. IT's faster then a PnP game.... and $e was basically a videogame on paper. (IMO)

A video game or WoW on paper, yeah, pretty much.

Pathfinder is what D&D 4th should have been.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (02:46:26/10-16-13)
SOME people LOVE 4e D&D.

Mainly those who got into it at that point...

however, if I wanted to play a video game, I would. IT's faster then a PnP game.... and $e was basically a videogame on paper. (IMO)

A video game or WoW on paper, yeah, pretty much.

Pathfinder is what D&D 4th should have been.

I enjoy pathfinder.. at least I don't have to follow the cookie cutter characters that 4e DnD demands you make.

under pathfinder, I can make my dual wielding short sword DEX fighter....

Or my xbow Paladin...

Or my two handed club rogue.....

or any one of 10,000,000 other characters that 4e DnD just didn't let you make.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (04:48:02/10-16-13)
they started giving crappy service around the last year or so of the 3.5 edition run. And that crappy service has extended into 4th edition as well and become the Defacto model for them (in many people's eyes). It is also indicative of how they have handled other departments of their brand name (computer games for the short time that Hasbro acted as a publisher, which they have thankfully gotten out of mostly)

as to "breaking D&D".... that is a matter of opinion. SOME people LOVE 4e D&D.

however, if I wanted to play a video game, I would. IT's faster then a PnP game.... and $e was basically a videogame on paper. (IMO)
I liked 4e, really. But they should have admitted their mistake (took playtesting results, changed a rule, didn't test it, and monsters in MM1 turned into slugfights) rather than basing an entire new sub-edition on the fix they should have simply made public. And the unified class theorem went somewhat too far even for my taste. Still, it was much easier to use, a perfect D&D Lite. Which used up way too many books. Might have been better to not make a D&D Lite Lite at that point but simply make AD&D again.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: DanJ on (06:05:36/10-16-13)
um... seeing as its easy to read stuff on message boards and get an immediate catastrophe complex, I need to ask:
I own both the hardcopy and pdf versions of sr5.... should I even bother trying to learn the new game until errata is released or is it serviceable with some gm liberties?

at the risk of me totally taking the tone of peoples comments the wrong way.....
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (06:36:24/10-16-13)
There's a few missing rule segments and a few where a GM simply has to decide what version to follow until errata are released. Only a few character types suffer from the confusion.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (06:42:35/10-16-13)
um... seeing as its easy to read stuff on message boards and get an immediate catastrophe complex, I need to ask:
I own both the hardcopy and pdf versions of sr5.... should I even bother trying to learn the new game until errata is released or is it serviceable with some gm liberties?

at the risk of me totally taking the tone of peoples comments the wrong way.....

honesty? The game IS perfectly playable as written... but common sense WILL have to be applied in some areas as the rules complex, confusing, or just missing! (like the fact your fall down if your stun track is filled... that somehow missed being mentioned)

there is a lot of whining and crying over some things. (A little too much IMO). but it's not totally broken as some would have you believe. Room for improvement and clarity? you bet. but not unplayable.

Just remember 3 simple things....
1: in 5e, everything has a "price", if you can't see what you are giving up for some option, you are either missing something, or the rules are incomplete in that area... apply common sense to find the balance point.

2: if it seems "too good" you probably missed something, go back and re-read the section again, but look for the "fluff" of the rule... (Spirits come to mind... Mechanically, they whoop ass... but there is a heavy RP element to spirits most people gloss over and not apply, thus removing the balancing factor in spirits)

3: apply the rules fairly across the board to PC and NPC alike. And if you are going to houserule something, stay consistant on it. The house rule applies to the PCs and the NPCs, not either, or....
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: DanJ on (06:45:00/10-16-13)
Thank you for the info guys :)

Which character types if I may ask Michael?
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (07:18:37/10-16-13)
If you're working under the HotPatch, pretty much just Riggers, Magic-boosted characters with Ware, Multiattackers and anyone within a hundred meters of a wireless or motion sensor grenade.

Riggers suffer from a lack of clarity on when they use what physical/mental/matrix attributes basically, a lack of intel on what is used to dodge for drones and no drone repair rules. The problems with RCC-Programs-Sharing-Drones phrasing have been solved by clarifications from Aaron which led me to suggest an errata'd phrase that clarifies it all. What stacks/clashes with what is even more a puzzle than in SR4, firing 2 weapons at 1 person, splitting bursts or throwing multiple knives at 1 person are all supposed to be an option but not covered properly and grenades are a total disaster thanks to a lack of a dodge test (motion sensors scatter 1d6 meters if they miss so still hurt like hell) combined with chunky salsa: If a single grenade explodes near you and there's a wall near you on the other side, you're pretty much dead.

You can houserule grenades but the rigger stuff, combination of augmentations+magic and what to do with multiple attacks aren't as easy to handle.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: DanJ on (07:21:15/10-16-13)
Thanks for the response. By hot patch do you mean rules clarifications in the errata thread? (I don't usually use these forums much)
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (07:38:07/10-16-13)
No, the Hot Patch errata document for Shadowrun Missions, which basically pre-empts the Errata by releasing a few really-needed ones for usage in Missions. A GM would be a fool not to use them at their home games as well, since they are quite useful.

http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=12106.0
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: DanJ on (07:48:36/10-16-13)
Thank you very much. You've been extremely helpful. I very much appreciate it :)
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (10:15:50/10-16-13)
You're welcome. :) Have a great time and make sure to check out http://www.catalystdemos.com/Venues.asp to see whether you can play any Shadowrun Missions near you. :)
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Agonar on (00:19:36/10-17-13)
Well, I've ran a game where someone fired a grenade into a large room with the Runner team, and even without the dodge test, no one ended up dead, even with Chunky Salsa in effect.  They were using High Explosive, so the damage dropped off fairly quickly, even considering the rebounding off the wall.

I haven't yet encountered any problems in the magic+Ware department.

And as for Multiple Attacks, I've also used it in the game, exactly how it's written, and it works just fine.  Decide the length of the burst you are firing, split it among the targets, Split your dice pool as per the multiple attacks action, and go with it.  There's a nifty Sidebar (p.180) on the modifiers to apply to defenders if you aren't firing enough bullets at them to comprise a typical burst.  Do they specifically say "When splitting bursts, you must split it this way"?  nope, but it really doesn't have to, as it works just fine they way it is
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (10:18:59/10-17-13)
Yeah, HE-grenades drop off real quick. Fragmentation are much more a problem. And the guy who is at point zero, or when multiple grenades are fired.

Agonar: The problem is it's not clear whether magic stacks with augmentations when it comes to things like stat-boosts. For a character aiming to combine different boosts on the same thing this can be quite important.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (16:20:19/10-17-13)
I dunno, they state you can have a max boost of +4 to a stat... regardless of where is comes from...

I myself wouldn't care if it was a combo of the 2, as long as it did not exceed that total +4.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (16:26:49/10-17-13)
Yeah, you'd say that yes? But we still got claims that that only applies to augmentations. -_-
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (16:32:29/10-17-13)
It should be clear cut, but Aaron recently stated that the text in Wireless Reflexes uses Augmentation in a narrow sense to mean only Cybernetic and bioware enhancements. If that's the case then it opens up the rest of the book to some weird scenarios. Fortunately almost all of the adept powers specify that they are covered, but there are otherproblematic places. 
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (16:52:48/10-17-13)
It should be clear cut, but Aaron recently stated that the text in Wireless Reflexes uses Augmentation in a narrow sense to mean only Cybernetic and bioware enhancements. If that's the case then it opens up the rest of the book to some weird scenarios. Fortunately almost all of the adept powers specify that they are covered, but there are otherproblematic places.

well,

Quote

Increase [Attribute]
(Essence)
Type: P Range: T
Duration: S Drain: F Ė 3
This spell increases an Attribute (natural or augmented)
on a voluntary subject. A version of this spell exists
for each Physical and Mental attribute, but not for
Special Attributes (Initiative, Edge, Essence, Magic, or
Resonance). The Force of the spell must equal or exceed
the (augmented) value of the Attribute being affected
.
The Attribute is increased by an amount equal to the hits
scored, up to the targetís augmented maximum (any hits
that would increase the Attribute beyond its augmented
maximum are ignored).
Each Attribute can only be affected
by a single Increase Attribute spell at a time.
Note that increasing an Attribute may affect other
derived statistics (Increase Reaction also affects Initiative,
for example, while Increase Body adds extra boxes
to the characterís Physical Condition Monitor for as long
as the spell lasts).

well, the Spell version DOES seem to break that +4 rule on further reading.... but should be noted that doing so could be extremely costly to the mage (the underlined part) so, casting "Increase Attribute (body)" on a troll with 12 body IS a force 12 spell.....
***(this statement is false, in my 3rd drunken read through by the spell description)
The adept ability is much more clear...

Quote
Attribute Boost
(Attribute)
Cost: 0.25 PP per level
Activation: Simple Action
You call upon inner strength to perform amazing physical
feats beyond their normal abilities. Attribute Boost must
be purchased for a specific Physical Attribute (Agility, Body,
Reaction, or Strength); separate Attribute Boost powers
may be bought for different attributes. This power cannot
be purchased for a Mental or Special Attribute.
When you activate this power, make a Magic + Attribute
Boost Rating Test. Each hit on this test boosts
your attribute rating by 1, up to your augmented Attribute
maximum
. This only affects your dice pools; your
Physical limit and Initiative ratings donít change with
Attribute Boost. The boost lasts for a number of Combat
Turns equal to twice the number of hits you get.
When the boost runs out, you take Drain equal to the
level of this power.

Quote

Improved
Physical Attribute
Cost: 1 PP per level
This power allows you to increase a physical attribute
(Body, Agility, Reaction, and Strength). This augments
your attribute, so your Physical limit may also increase
with the new Attribute rating. This power allows you to
exceed your natural Attribute maximum, up to your augmented
maximum.

So at the end of the day.... I guess it becomes a GM's call on how he wants to handle this and the rules do seem to contradict each other a bit....
***(The Spell does state that any extra hits that would push an attribute above augmented max is ignored)
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (16:57:52/10-17-13)
I think it should be noted however, that: "What is good for the goose is good for the gander"

So if they REALLY want to try this little route to quick power, the GM is free to use the same on them...

So now they could be facing a Troll, with a body of 20.... and heavy security armor AND a panther assault "rifle".....


Makes their little munchkin argument seem weighted in the GMs favor....
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (17:03:40/10-17-13)
"The NPCs can do it as well" hardly is a good argument against badly-written rules.

Increase Attribute respects augmented maximum by the way.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (17:10:55/10-17-13)
I REALLY got to stop drinking in the morning.... (but, Beer and Cornflakes is SOOOOOO good!!!!)


just changed my post 2 posts up (where I quoted the spells/abilities)

there was an interesting line in there I missed my first 3 readings (why can't I read both things I am seeing clearly?!?!? or yea... beer)

There seems to be a limitation on the spell as well that caps it to augmented Max.... and any more hits are ignored by the spell.... So to me, that would suggest using edge (which normally allows more hit then the limiter) would be wasted as THAT is as strong/fast/etc as the body can get.


Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (17:18:19/10-17-13)
True, if all boosts except drugs are augmentations or mention following augmented maximum, then only Possession (if it doesn't mention it once it becomes available) and drugs can bypass it. And cyberlimbs, of course, but those have a price.

Initiative, on the other hand...
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (17:36:37/10-17-13)
True, if all boosts except drugs are augmentations or mention following augmented maximum, then only Possession (if it doesn't mention it once it becomes available) and drugs can bypass it. And cyberlimbs, of course, but those have a price.

Initiative, on the other hand...


Am I missing something?

Quote

Increase Reflexes
(Essence)
Type: P Range: T
Duration: S Drain: F
This spell increases the initiative of a subject. Each hit
rolled on the Spellcasting Test adds +1 to the targetís Initiative,
and every two hits adds one Initiative Die. A character
can only be affected by a single Increase Reflexes spell at
a time, and the maximum Initiative Dice anyone can have
is +5D6.


It seems quite clear....
the MAX dice you can get from any combination of tech and magic is 5d6.....

Each hit rolled adds +1 to initiative
2 hits give +1 dice...

So if a mage SUPER overcasts and edges the roll AND gets 15 hits, the spell gives:
+15 to initiative
+ 4d6 (or LESS given the starting initiative dice of the subject)
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (17:39:17/10-17-13)
The question raised by Aaron's reading of the text in Wired Reflexes is whether, for instance, you can stack Wired 1, Nitro and Increased Reflexes to achieve +5D6.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (17:59:38/10-17-13)
The question raised by Aaron's reading of the text in Wired Reflexes is whether, for instance, you can stack Wired 1, Nitro and Increased Reflexes to achieve +5D6.

.
..
...
.....

I can see it.

The mage is risking drain on the spell,

the Buffie is risking addiction on the Nitro, and paid essence and money to get the wired reflexes 1...

AND it is still capped at 5d6, regardless of the number of hits by the mage, or the number of doses of Nitro (factoring in addiction levels)


And again: "good for the goose good for the gander"....

If this becomes the Modus operandi for that player, letting him tangle with an NPC that uses the same trick might be a good object lesion for him... (the player would still probably win... but suddenly he will realize that the bad guys can do that too).


After all, nothing stops the entire NPC team from focus firing on him to bring him down, seeing as he is now a bigger threat then the rest of the team due to his speed (arguably next to the mage) and with the way initiative works now, it's not like he is going to get off multiple attacks before anyone else goes. Sure he will probably go first.... but not 2 or 3 times before the opposition has a chance to respond.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (18:47:46/10-17-13)
So... back on topic. Is there any ETA on the errata?
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: martinchaen on (18:50:57/10-17-13)
Dangersaurus; you keep asking, as if that is somehow magically going to get the errata here faster. I'm fairly confident that CGL will announce an errata document here and elsewhere, so repeatedly "pushing the elevator button" won't make things happen more quickly.

Take a page from Blizzard; the errata will be here "soon".
Quote
Copyright 2004-2013 Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved. "Soon" does not imply any particular date, time, decade, century, or millennia in the past, present, and certainly not the future. "Soon" shall make no contract or warranty between Blizzard Entertainment and the end user. "Soon" will arrive some day, Blizzard does guarantee that "soon" will be here before the end of time. Maybe. Do not make plans based on "soon" as Blizzard will not be liable for any misuse, use, or even casual glancing at "soon."
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (18:55:51/10-17-13)
I'll ask it every time this thread steers off topic, sorry if that offends your sense of decorum.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (18:57:45/10-17-13)
Why? Other than being really rude to the development staff what good do you think it's doing?
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: ZeConster on (19:12:50/10-17-13)
It's reminding the people who are posting of the actual topic?
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (19:33:42/10-17-13)
Exactly, ZeConster. If this thread withers and dies, so be it... I'm not even being pushy or rude IMO. Just asking a question that so far has no answer.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: PeterSmith on (21:14:53/10-17-13)
It's reminding the people who are posting of the actual topic?

So...he's being redundant with the subject line for every single post in this thread?

Here's the answer to your question: The errata will be compiled and released as part of the preparation for the first corrected printing. There may or may not be an announcement as to when the errata will be compiled. The thread Patrick started may or may not get locked as part of this process. And given that nothing is truly gamebreaking I don't think there is a major push to get the errata out. Not at the expense at new product productivity.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: ZeConster on (21:16:49/10-17-13)
It's reminding the people who are posting of the actual topic?
So...he's being redundant with the subject line for every single post in this thread?
No. He's not.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: All4BigGuns on (21:35:34/10-17-13)
It's reminding the people who are posting of the actual topic?

So...he's being redundant with the subject line for every single post in this thread?

Here's the answer to your question: The errata will be compiled and released as part of the preparation for the first corrected printing. There may or may not be an announcement as to when the errata will be compiled. The thread Patrick started may or may not get locked as part of this process. And given that nothing is truly gamebreaking I don't think there is a major push to get the errata out. Not at the expense at new product productivity.

*applauds loudly and boisterously*
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (22:12:02/10-17-13)
Here's the answer to your question: The errata will be compiled and released as part of the preparation for the first corrected printing. There may or may not be an announcement as to when the errata will be compiled. The thread Patrick started may or may not get locked as part of this process. And given that nothing is truly gamebreaking I don't think there is a major push to get the errata out. Not at the expense at new product productivity.

So is this official word? Honestly, I have no idea if you're with CGL or a freelancer or what.

Not really going to argue about gamebreaking, since that point was never made. Having official fixes and clarifications will make for a better game, and I want a better game.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: PeterSmith on (22:34:09/10-17-13)
Omae, I just post here. Official answers come from people with titles.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: ambarmetta on (03:16:43/10-23-13)
@Dangersaurus, I agree with almost all of your last post. 
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Xenon on (09:37:24/11-30-13)
I am a bit late to the party it seems :)

I dunno, they state you can have a max boost of +4 to a stat... regardless of where is comes from...
The +4 you are thinking about is a rule that only apply to augmentations (cyberware and bioware) and is mentioned on SR5 p.94

That mean all augmentations (cyberware and bioware) are automatically affected by this rule (they don't have to explicit mention the limit, most of them don't, and still be affected by it) - if they want to break out of the rule they need to explicit state so (which for example the wireless bonus of wired reflexes do). It also mean that no magical enhancements to attributes are automatically affected by this rule and if they want to use the same rule they explicitly have to mention it (as you noted a lot of them do - but not all of them)

Drugs are not augmentations (cyberware or bioware) and they also don't explicit mention this rule, thus they are not affected (but if you combine drugs with say a magical enhancement that does use this rule then the magical enhancement will get weaker to compensate for the bonus you get from the drug so that you don't exceed the limit).


The question raised by Aaron's reading of the text in Wired Reflexes is whether, for instance, you can stack Wired 1, Nitro and Increased Reflexes to achieve +5D6.
Sure, that will be legal.

For the purpose of initiative - wired reflexes is only incompatible with other augmentations (cyberware or bioware), nitro being a drug is compatible with everything and increased reflexes are only incompatible with other increase reflex spells. This is one of the strengths with wired reflexes.
...but you can't for example use synaptic boosters (which is in other cases superior to wired reflexes, at least at rating 2 and 3) to do the same as it is incompatible with any other form of initiative enhancement (which include augmentations, magic and even drugs).

You can also use improved reflexes and drugs to get more than +4 reaction (as the reaction part of improved reflexes is compatible with everything).




If you want to continue to discuss this matter I would be happy to do so, but in that case I suggest that it is done in this thread:

http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=12756.msg235023#msg235023

Thanks in advance




As for the topic at hand.
Would like if someone official could state something. anything.
It's been very quiet for a very long time now.
Even Aaron stopped posting :( :(
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Pixelmancer on (21:56:04/12-08-13)
I think the proportion of online orders may also have surprised them. There are still copies on store shelves in a lot of places.
After having experienced the joys of searchability and bendproof pages I'm pretty much never going to buy a physical book again. I'm surprised anyone still does. Must be nostalgia or something.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: All4BigGuns on (00:13:10/12-09-13)
I think the proportion of online orders may also have surprised them. There are still copies on store shelves in a lot of places.
After having experienced the joys of searchability and bendproof pages I'm pretty much never going to buy a physical book again. I'm surprised anyone still does. Must be nostalgia or something.

Or those, like someone I personally know, whose eyes begin hurting after too long looking at a PDF.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: BetaCAV on (23:05:52/12-09-13)
PDF's are great on tablets, but on a laptop, they take up too much gametable real estate, especially if everyone has one out, leaving aside the need for a power strip. On phones, the screen just isn't big enough. And in both cases, the insistence of publishers on making page-image PDFs, rather than a reflowable single column of text just makes it a pain to get a desired readable sized chunk of it on the screen by itself. For occasional reference, I'd much rather have a book.

Now, if PDFs would incorporate errata revisions automatically, that would be a huge point in their favor. But they don't do that either.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Csjarrat on (11:46:43/12-13-13)
games workshop's pdf/epub codex's do as far as i'm aware. that technology is def out there.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Dangersaurus on (14:29:23/12-14-13)
Been buried at work, but it's finally winding down for the season.

So... any update on the errata? The game has been out for six months now.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (20:36:51/12-14-13)
Nope.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: KraakenDazs on (12:27:50/12-18-13)
I have mentioned this in the other thread, but ill do it again here.

I'd like to mention my post truly isn't about complaining, nor do i desire to cause ire and/or inflame anyone, on player, freelancer or CGL peeps in anyway. If anything, this post is because i like your work, and i want more of it.

I'm just wondering if an ETA on errata, or a status update, or a brief official mention of this being ''in the works'' has been disclosed as of late. I know CGL have a lot on their plate this year. A lot of product releases and schedule to maintain, and im sure they want this errata out as much as anyone. But the radio silence is a bit infuriating. I've scoured the net, the cgl main site, tried to find twitters and facebooks and whatnots, to no avail. Maybe this isn,t even the right forum for it. Perhaps people ''in the know'' won't even read it. If so, i'd like to know where i can direct this adress, to make it a productive effort rather than just a b*tch-fest :P

While SR is an awesome game, and with a distinctive style like no other in the market, and a system that is extremely complete, i have to admit the latest SR5 releases have gaping editing holes. I've yet to see a single product that doesn't contradict itself or leave blatant holes in the mechanics. And bottom-line is, you buy those books for the mechanics as well as the fluff. Especially a *core* *rule*book.

I just do not feel it justified to purchase additional products knowing the system itself is oh-so flawed and after 7 months (Again, highly validated by the fact that this game is HUGE. BUT i also have to admit i've rarely seen a game that needed that much editing and errata, even after a first release.) We have nothing more than a hot fix that adresses a lot of issues but misses a ton of other, smaller tidbits, and after that long, its worrysome.

I love Shadowrun. I love the fact its being revitalized and that this year has so much SR coming for us. I bought the new pdf within an hour of release, because its that awesome what you guys are doing. But i just can't bring myself to want to buy anymore supplements knowing i have gaping holes in the rules and i have to houserule everything, which i do, but it leaves a sour aftertaste in the sessions, especially among the more rule-lawyer inclined among us. (And with a system this complete/complicated, there's quite a few of those playing SR :P).

I dunno, maybe some official words would alleviate the concern, even if those words are simply that ''Too much stuff is going on BUT this errata is in progress''. Or maybe radio silence is also a fine corporate move, but after having official feedback in the past, its a bit of a letdown.

This post isnt as much about complaining as to bring up this following point: I won't be buying SR5 products for the time being. Because the basis is flawed, it doesnt entice me to buy anything else. A friend purchased (Firing Line? Sprawl Wilds?) lately, and even then i noticed some editing contradictions, sometimes in the same page, or 2 paragraphs apart. It's...shoddy editing. Not shoddy work. They work's there, the ideas are awesome, but editing wise? It's clunky at best. Without a stable ruleset, and with broken editing, i just cant justify purchasing products. It's better to houserule everything and plan things ''in-house''. Even the main catalyst website features more SR4A than SR5, and the transition doesn't seem to be happening at all. Should i simply revert to 4e, stick with the books i have and never look twice at SR5 again?

Should the errata be released, and concerns adressed (editing is an issue, but as long as erratas come out, its forgiveable. The buisness world is demanding and deadlines always seem to fall short of the time you assumed you had.) , i'll gladly return to purchasing SR5 products. But until then, i just dont see the point paying for something that doesn't work. If i buy a new computer, and everything BUT the CPU works...well, the computer still won't run. If everything works, but the power adaptor's cords to make it all run together doesnt work, the computer still won't work. Jury-rigging might make it work, but its not as advertised. Thank you, and i apologize again should my opinion on sensitive matters infuriate anyone. It was never meant so.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (12:40:24/12-18-13)
There has been official word that the Errata is in progress.

I'll say that if your perception of SR5 is based on the forums that you're not getting the whole picture. There are only a handful of actuial contradictions in the book, and very few editing errors that are real difficulties absent forum level hounding of minutia. 
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: KraakenDazs on (12:43:07/12-18-13)
I also understand a public forum might not be the optimal place for such a post. The reasons i did so however, are simple:

1) Its to transmit any news of Errata to the player population

and

2) There were no means to contact Catalyst directly through the main website. The closest thing was the forums, which is why i posted it here. If someone can give me proper directions to contact the people in charge, i'll gladly to it, and take down this post. (I'm not trying to actively diminish CGL's effort to the public eye. As i mentioned, i love the work put out so far, i just hope it's soon improved to a point where its useable without so much gray areas)
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: KraakenDazs on (12:48:02/12-18-13)
True, i'll gladly grant you there's a LOT of nitpicking on these forums that go beyond a reasonnable level of expectations (I won't go as far as to expect each single tidbit to be adressed)

But a lot of editing was /is unclear. For example, cover rules waste entire paragraphs sending you to a page, that redirects you to another, only to be redirected to a 3rd or 4th page.

The Archetypes (Which is basically introductory-level stuff for new players wanting to play quickly) is riddled with god-awful mistakes (I'm aware the system and its components changed between the creation of the Archetypes and the book publication, and as a stand-alone its ...frustrating but not incredibly so)...but...stuff adds :S

Dodging grenades, there's a mention of penalty to grenade dodging, but no actual method of resolve since its an AoE effect. Made even moreso complicated by AoE spells being covered like grenades.

I mean..18 pages of errata clarifications and dozens of Rules And Such pages have me a bit concerned :S

Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: PeterSmith on (13:38:56/12-18-13)
Catalyst posts errata after it's been compiled. Errata is compiled as part of the reprint process. The only reason it was skipped prior to the current reprinting was due to the proximity to the original release data and the desire to fill the demand that came in above and beyond CGL's initial printing.

You picked up the PDF? Great, you're going to get the updated version when it's available (assuming you hit the notification box when you ordered). Will everything get addressed? Can't say. What I can tell you is when BattleTech's Tactical Operations went through its first errata process there were some sections that were re-written based on fan feedback. Will that happen with SR5? Don't know, that's a down-the-road decision. However there is precedence within CGL to make those changes.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: KraakenDazs on (13:53:15/12-18-13)
Well, again, great to know, but absolutely no official words in month (that i know of. If this is an official answer...well, okay :) ), and the pdf 's been out for over half a year :S

In the last hour, and 8 pages in the Errata thread, im finding a lot of game-breaking contradictions. On the GM side, those can be houseruled, but on the PC creation side? Its kind of hard to ignore. Does jury-rigging effects have durations?  Is everything in the hotfix considered ''official'' until otherwise. Why can rigged cars go beyond the speed of sound, if not light. Does charge attack take in effect the -2 from running?Submersion has wrong karma costs, but beyond looking through those 8 pages, after 7 months i'd never know that without digging through pages and pages of player input erratas.  Gunnery and it's linked Ability. Hardened Armor and DV of equal value, which wins? Effective time reduction of Instruction skill rolls. Grenades and AoE spells, how do you dodge them, if you can. And most of  those are all not-only oversights, but contradictory statements in the book and i'm only on page 8. But getting there still only took me less than an hour. I'm not even going into the unclear stuff (Mystic Adepts, what exactly stacks in regard to attributes, minions effective skill level, spirit GM or player control and the ''Movement'' Power, etc.  :S 

BUT, i thank you for pointing out the precedents. In any case, I'm looking forward to continuing to support the company's effort in making Shadowrun the epic product it is. But i still won't be doing so until the errata comes out, no matter how many products are pushed out in the meantime. :S
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Sichr on (14:18:49/12-18-13)
There has been official word that the Errata is in progress.

I'll say that if your perception of SR5 is based on the forums that you're not getting the whole picture. There are only a handful of actuial contradictions in the book, and very few editing errors that are real difficulties absent forum level hounding of minutia. 

Catalyst posts errata after it's been compiled. Errata is compiled as part of the reprint process. The only reason it was skipped prior to the current reprinting was due to the proximity to the original release data and the desire to fill the demand that came in above and beyond CGL's initial printing.

You picked up the PDF? Great, you're going to get the updated version when it's available (assuming you hit the notification box when you ordered). Will everything get addressed? Can't say. What I can tell you is when BattleTech's Tactical Operations went through its first errata process there were some sections that were re-written based on fan feedback. Will that happen with SR5? Don't know, that's a down-the-road decision. However there is precedence within CGL to make those changes.

I just read whole thread from the first post and it is nice to see your opinion evolving over the time to stay at least optimistic.
Truth is that The year of shadowrun is almost ower and from whole product line all we have is useless core book, Shadowrun Returns, lots of excuses for SR:O and lot of silence on the rest of planned products. At least for Crossfire there are signs of life, well it seems more like "stay tuned" than "we have developement  done" or "we know the deadline"
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (14:19:45/12-18-13)
Having run 4 months worth of games, the core book is in no way useless.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Sichr on (14:45:05/12-18-13)
Having run 4 months worth of games, the core book is in no way useless.

Nope. We have tried to play by those rules, and get back to SRA. I was a bit annoyed, since my hacker character is quite limited in action due to large gaps in SRA matrix ruls, well, here was too much confusion on rules and too much need for explanations and improvisations due to contradictions or missing text that we spend most time reserved for the game by trying to find out something basic.

This may be caused by the fact our team is not native english speaking, average for most of us. This increases the need for strict, simple rules, because every mistake that can be simply overriden by you means great obstacle for us. SRA was much easier to read/navigate/understand for us.

Having run 4 months worth of games, the core book is in no way useless.

It's not, but to those who subscribe to the entitlement-ridden idea of "the customer is always right", it might be.

Sorry, but I just hate that saying because it leads to those who think that because they have to wait a little longer for their burger at McDonald's because they chose to go in at a time when there's a line extending out the door that they should get their entire meal free. This entire thread reminds me of those people.

Go. Tell. Valve. ;)
You are shooting at wrong target. It seems you think that we are complaining about things getting too long. But what we are really complaining about is lack of regular feedback from CGL. And the year is almost over.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (14:48:14/12-18-13)
I'm sorry if you're having problems with the core book in your group, but calling the book useless is simply untrue.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: All4BigGuns on (14:57:16/12-18-13)
This may be caused by the fact our team is not native english speaking, average for most of us. This increases the need for strict, simple rules, because every mistake that can be simply overriden by you means great obstacle for us. SRA was much easier to read/navigate/understand for us.

The company is composed of English speaking employees and is located in a primarily English speaking nation, and most that purchase the game are in that nation. Sorry if you're having problems since you aren't native speakers of English, but that's a very niche situation and does not actually make the book "useless" to the majority of players. Those of us who are native speakers of English would probably have problems with any game published primarily in your home country--it's to be expected.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: martinchaen on (15:13:03/12-18-13)
I'm sorry if you're having problems with the core book in your group, but calling the book useless is simply untrue.
QFT.

My group had some initial frustrations (in large part due to my frustration with the lethality of basic mooks against street level characters, but the GM did an awesome job of adjusting to the new rules), and we are now 8-10 runs deep in a street-level thugs turned shadowrunners style campaign, as well as halfway through the dual-statted CMP2010s, working our way towards SRM Season 5.

SR5 is in no way useless. Could it use some clarifications and elaborations, yes. Can you still enjoy it as is, abso-fraggin'-lutely.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Sichr on (15:27:35/12-18-13)
This may be caused by the fact our team is not native english speaking, average for most of us. This increases the need for strict, simple rules, because every mistake that can be simply overriden by you means great obstacle for us. SRA was much easier to read/navigate/understand for us.

The company is composed of English speaking employees and is located in a primarily English speaking nation, and most that purchase the game are in that nation. Sorry if you're having problems since you aren't native speakers of English, but that's a very niche situation and does not actually make the book "useless" to the majority of players. Those of us who are native speakers of English would probably have problems with any game published primarily in your home country--it's to be expected.

pah. There is nothing like Shadowrun  :) and it wasnt my point. We will try the 5ed again when erratas are ou and also other core books give us better understanding of RAI, so we are able to rule out where we are confused in basic book.

OK I agree that calling the book "Useless" was a overstated.

Now what about the other part of my message. That about the lack of regular communication from CGL.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: All4BigGuns on (15:32:57/12-18-13)
Now what about the other part of my message. That about the lack of regular communication from CGL.

Irrelevant and simply proof that gamers these days are becoming spoiled rotten. Gaming functioned just fine back in the pre-internet days when "errata" wasn't known about and changes weren't seen until a reprint with said changes had already hit the shelves. Claiming that you "need errata to play the game" simply isn't true because of that simple fact.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: KraakenDazs on (15:56:30/12-18-13)
Well, actually, yes.

I don't believe in the whole ''Rotten player wanting the moon thing.'' I dont believe the game should be up to any standard i set beyond whats advertised. If i buy a product and its not as good as i wish it was, well, thats disappointing, but its not the company's fault.

*However*, with that said. When there are gaping systematic holes in a rulebook, which i bought in order to be supplied the rules and material needed for a game, that is not being ''overly'' demanding in any way shape or form.  If the game doesnt have as elaborate a range of cyberware as i'd wish it. Boohoo for me, i have no rights to complain.

When the rules start giving me stats for grenades, and contradicting rules for their uses, or contradicting rule on combat rules, that is broken, and i see no harm in expecting it to be fixed. And again, my (personnal) claims come from over half a year of publication. Same if i play a video game. If the game's not as awesome as i'd expected it to be (read: Diablo 3) , i have no rights to complain. I got what i paid for: A game. I'm expecting the bug fixes, and i'm glad for added content, but i *cannot* expect or demand *that*. But bugfixes, yeah, fix those. And the SR system is completely filled with them. And again yes, sometimes it prevents you to play the game. I've had an hour long argument mid-combat not long ago, because players were arguing. They ended up BOTH able to show the rule they were arguing about, and they were contradicting. I ended the bickering by houseruling it. But its becoming a staple. And its frustrating.

Again, if the company's stance is ''We expect players to be smart enough to develop their own rules''...okay. Its their choices, and its mine wether to encourage it or not. My predicament here is trying to know ''Is something coming out about those issues, or not. Do i move on disappointed (through NO ONE else's fault but my own expectations), or do i stick around , grit my teeth and wait.

I'll never be one of those people who feels entitled to the moon, nor will i call the developpers bethind the system lazy, incompetent, or anything of the like, because its not true. They work hard, they have great ideas, and they want to do their best, otherwise, they wouldn't be game developpers. :P
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (15:58:48/12-18-13)

Now what about the other part of my message. That about the lack of regular communication from CGL.

I see the CGL posters here daily. Aaron, Bull and the rest are constantly communicating. The errata thread launched the day of the pdf release and if you can find a page of it that didn't include a response from a freelancer or other CGL related person.  What you're complaining about is that there's no street date for the errata.

Catalyst doesn't do street dates until the product is ready to ship, and the errata will be an epub.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (16:10:23/12-18-13)
Can't say I agree with the personal attacks on Harebrained Schemes, Cliffhanger Productions and Catalyst Game Labs.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: KraakenDazs on (16:15:50/12-18-13)

I see the CGL posters here daily. Aaron, Bull and the rest are constantly communicating. The errata thread launched the day of the pdf release and if you can find a page of it that didn't include a response from a freelancer or other CGL related person.  What you're complaining about is that there's no street date for the errata.

Well to be blunt and undefensive...yeah.

Last communication by Aaron on the Errata was in late August (4 months ago, about half the time *since* release.  The lack of a street date approximation is starting to hurt my desire to wait for it. Again, this is post-7 months of waiting and gaming issues that is spurring this resurgence in my expectations.

But it really wasn't a debate i was trying to start, nor an insurrexion mutiny (i...have no idea how to spell insurrection (?)...) . I'm just hoping a dev sees it at some point in a not so distant future and give us an update on the ETA so i can make up my mind (And something beyond the ''It'll happen when it happens'' or equivalents that has been posted around this board a few time. Don't really require an exact street date heh.

Plus, and as i've mentionned, it was also spurred on by the release dates of other SR products, which i believe is a bad idea buisness-wise considering the baseline rules for everything that comes down from it requires rework to start with. I was actually really interested in the equipement card, gm screen, whatnot. Figured that'd be things to make it onto the list of holidays and whatnots. But if the errata isnt out yet, and if it's subject to change, why would i purchase go-to tools (equipement , spells, and quick reference), without knowing if they'd also suffer from an errata. I have no interest in purchasing ''Go-to tools'' that'll require their own ''Go-to tools''.

Having an ETA. OR at least confirmation that the upcoming products would already include proper Errata, would go a long way, marketting wise. So those are my consumer's worries. I dont think i'm entitled to having my whims cattered to, but i feel my situation is one shared with others (to be frank, when i first came across those boards, it wasn't at first the community or the optimization or the discussions that reeled me in. I had a ton of rule questions :S) . At that point, it's entirely in CGL's hands, and i have absolutely no right to demand or expect anything. I'm sharing an opinion and a review of the situation, and hopes and suggestions on fixing a worrysome situation heh. I mentionned it a ton of times, but i dont encourage flaming against the devs or their work. They work hard, their job isn't easy, and i love their work and send out tons of respect to them.

It's a slim nuance between that and being a whiner baby, i concur, but i'm hoping to make it over the cut :P
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Michael Chandra on (16:19:18/12-18-13)
Whoa, wait up. I'm not a Freelancer, all I am is a voluntary demo agent, which simply means I host a Missions game every month. There is no official support behind any of my statements, which is why I mark my posts ((like this)) and try to reference official sources whenever possible.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: KraakenDazs on (16:21:04/12-18-13)
Oh, my bad. I'll edit my post ;) .

I scrolled quickly in the ETA board and got mixed up between Freelancers, head moderator, and catalyst demo agent...!
(but yeah, you also often mention the caveat that you dont have the official say, which is why the last ''Official-ish'' statement i saw on the Eratta was around early september.

Anywayz, editing it!
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Sichr on (16:48:06/12-18-13)
Now what about the other part of my message. That about the lack of regular communication from CGL.

Irrelevant and simply proof that gamers these days are becoming spoiled rotten. Gaming functioned just fine back in the pre-internet days when "errata" wasn't known about and changes weren't seen until a reprint with said changes had already hit the shelves. Claiming that you "need errata to play the game" simply isn't true because of that simple fact.

Should I take it as personal insult?

Can't say I agree with the personal attacks on Harebrained Schemes, Cliffhanger Productions and Catalyst Game Labs.

Cannot say I see any. What I see are many people lured by bombastic marketing campaign and goals that are not met without any or with only little explanation.

Also funny there are some that love to be toyed with and adapt Stokcholm syndrome like behaviour, right, A4?

Aztech style, if you ask me.

And I dont blame freelancers that they avoid this discussions. They probably have as little info as we do, so one cannot blame them for not fighting wars they are not armed for.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: martinchaen on (17:11:44/12-18-13)
Sichr
Remember that errata is not an issue unique to Catalyst Game Labs; every gaming system out there publishes errata. You want to complain about errata? Try playing Warhammer 40k... Or DnD. Or the first print edition of ANY RPG for the past 30 years. Take a look at The Complete Book Of Elves, then come back and tell me Shadowrun Fifth Edition NEEDS errata.

Or, screw common sense and keep complaining. I'm done with even bothering to read this discussion, that's for sure. Flame on, you crazy diamond.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Sichr on (17:25:31/12-18-13)
Following the same logic:

Quote
Most politicians are corrupt. So it is OK, if the one I voted for is corrupt too.

Come on. 12 pages of discussion on the topic and now you are all set up because of my three posts?

And again. I am complaining about lack of feedback. Not about the fact we need erratta...which I understand and accept without any opposition.

And I hope that the first feedback I will see wont be FJ warning me that I shouldnt challnge devs, If that, I`ll take a long rest and fall back to PbP section, where lies the main reason d`etre of this forums from my POV.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Crunch on (17:59:15/12-18-13)
You realize that accusing people of Stockholm Syndrome is a personal attack right Sichr?

I like 5th edition because its a good game. 4th was a hideous mess and 4A only cleaned up the (way worse than 5E) errata mess of 4 without fixing the underlying errors. But I'm not going to accuse you of a mental illness because you like what you like. If you like 4 go play it.

 5E on the other hand is smooth, fluid and playable. There are a few places where the ref has to make a judgment call, but overall it's the most playable version of SR yet released.

I'm done with this conversation, largely because I don't like being insulted, but you might think about attacking people for their taste less.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Reaver on (20:39:49/12-18-13)
Now what about the other part of my message. That about the lack of regular communication from CGL.

Irrelevant and simply proof that gamers these days are becoming spoiled rotten. Gaming functioned just fine back in the pre-internet days when "errata" wasn't known about and changes weren't seen until a reprint with said changes had already hit the shelves. Claiming that you "need errata to play the game" simply isn't true because of that simple fact.


Kiddies these days!!!


"Back in my day, I had to walk 10 km through waist deep snow up hill.... BOTH WAYS, with 1 boot to get to the gaming store to buy a book... with gold nuggets dug up with my own hands!! And it was a happy day indeed if there just happened to be a reprinted book with errata in it!!!"




Point is kiddies, People are busy, and Catalyst is not a multi-million dollar company with a staff of hundreds... or even dozens. Those that are in the know, have other jobs, and other projects to work on so they can continue to put food on the table, they do not have the time (nor the will) to respoind every minute to every question that every single person has.....


The Errata will be released when it is done. And it will be done when it is done.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: All4BigGuns on (21:05:33/12-18-13)
Now what about the other part of my message. That about the lack of regular communication from CGL.

Irrelevant and simply proof that gamers these days are becoming spoiled rotten. Gaming functioned just fine back in the pre-internet days when "errata" wasn't known about and changes weren't seen until a reprint with said changes had already hit the shelves. Claiming that you "need errata to play the game" simply isn't true because of that simple fact.

Should I take it as personal insult?

Think that if you want, or you can take it for what it is, a commentary on "gamer culture" in general these days, be the gamer in question a console-gamer, PC-gamer, card-gamer or tabletop gamer.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: mjack on (22:08:36/12-18-13)
Just because we claim fixes and patches for a paid product in a digital world where you do not even need to publish print editions anymore?

In general, the gaming industry is having great benefits from these not-anymore-pre-internet days when they can release an unfinished product as pricey "open beta" and let the players report all the bugs developers missed, had no time fixing or just did not implement until deadline. Terrible thing, means way more work as back then and people even might get a solid product for their money - at least someday.

I am very used to "It is done when it is done." and will patiently wait while fixing and patching products in the gaming industry myself. In the meanwhile we all can have fun with Gear Cards and the new Gun Heaven 3 (which already has its own Errata thread).
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: Sichr on (05:02:30/12-19-13)
You realize that accusing people of Stockholm Syndrome is a personal attack right Sichr?

I like 5th edition because its a good game. 4th was a hideous mess and 4A only cleaned up the (way worse than 5E) errata mess of 4 without fixing the underlying errors. But I'm not going to accuse you of a mental illness because you like what you like. If you like 4 go play it.

 5E on the other hand is smooth, fluid and playable. There are a few places where the ref has to make a judgment call, but overall it's the most playable version of SR yet released.

I'm done with this conversation, largely because I don't like being insulted, but you might think about attacking people for their taste less.

Just fyi... Stockholm syndrome is not mental illness. It is a behavioral patern that develops in people who are being held hostage. They tend to defend kidnappers and show highly positive emotions towards them after some time. Now the funny part...the same beha ioral pattern can be recognized in bahaviour of employees in common capitalistic companies, including highly trained professionals. They are heavily underpaid, spending lots of overtime in the job, giving the best parts of their lives to the company. And most of them tend to defend the company name, advertise it and spread the story of good will to the world.
Title: Re: ETA on Errata
Post by: frankhlane on (11:13:05/12-22-13)
If the game's not as awesome as i'd expected it to be (read: Diablo 3) , i have no rights to complain. I got what i paid for: A game

 ::)